• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Samuel_Vimes said:
I tried.

At one point, I found that Kasprowicz had bowled a maiden at the death in his career, but it turned out Wasim had too, so no luck there. So, I'm giving up.
Never use the term "give up" or similar in this thread! :p :@
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
SJS said:
The Assignment : To prove that Kasprowicz is a better bowler at the death than Wasim Akram

The Constraints : Lack of availability of statistics of the death overs

Modus Operendi : Use the other relevant stats available to show how Kasper HAS to be a better bowler at the death.

What is required to be a good bowler at the death ?
1. To be an economical bowler to start with.
2. To have the ability to bowl well to middle order batsmen (after all it is if they are still there at the end that the job will be tough not if 9, 10 Jack are struggling to get through the 50 overs)
3. To have the ability to bowl tightly in the 21st century's batsman friendly conditions where run rates have touched hitherto unimagined heights.

1. Comparison of Akram and Kasper's abilities against the middle order batsmen.

It may surprise the zillions of sub-continental devotees of the Pakistani Southpaw that he seemed to specialise in handling tail enders !!

Blasphemy ?

No sir !! Fact !

127 of Akrams victim's or 25.3 % of all the wickets he took in limited over internationals were of tail enders(numbers 8 to 11). Kasper has only 9 wickets(13.8%) of tail enders !! Surprised ? Well dont be. There's more.

You may say what has this to do with bowling at the death when we are agreed that its bowling to better batsmen (if they are still there at the death) is what matters. Okay, okay. Only 29.1 % of Akram's victims are middle order batsmen (numbers 4 to 7) while our lion from down under counts a phenomenal 44.6% of all his victims as being from the middle order !!

Thats not all. I am well aware of the sceptics who may rush into the well of the house shouting that there will be cases (howsoever few) when numbers 1 to 3 may also be at the end.

SO. If we add all victims from numbers 1 to 7 (though its less than fair to expect top order to be there often enough to matter) we still find
Akram having only 74.7%
wkts from top and middle order while
Kasper has 86.2 %
of his victims from this august group !!!!

Clearly Kasper has the top batsmen in a tizzy compared to Akram who seems to shrink like a violet before the onslaught of the top and middle order. Clearly this must translate itself into a better performance when faced by these same batsmen at the wicket in all situations of the match including the death overs.

2. Ability to bowl maidens at will !!!.

As is usual with the ignorant or the semi-litterate, people jump at Akrams career figures and wave them in the face of Kasper to try and prove that the former was a more economical bowler. This is a fallacy.

Firstly, Kasper and Akram played in different eras with very little overlap so taking into account Akram's figures for the pre-Kasper era of cricket is stupid.

Secondly, Kasper has been one of the greatest victims of unfair selection policies of his countries cricket authorities.

From the time he made his debut in December 1995 till November 2003, he played in a grand total of 16 ODI's in 8 years !! 2 ODI's per year !! What does one expect by way of consistent performance from a young man in this situation ??

In a similar 8 year period between 1994 and 2002, Akram played 169 ODI's. OVER 21 ODI's per year !!

And we want to compare them ??

Anyway, in the 18 months since Kasper has played with some regularity(2004 and 2005) playing 24 matches in a year and a half, he has shown himself to be one of the great bowlers for this form of the game.

How do we say that ?

Well what is one of the most difficult things for a bowler to do in an ODI? Bowl a maiden of course.

In the years 2004 and 2005 , 10.7 % of all overs bowled by Kasper have been maidens !! Can you beat that ??

Akram has a career % of 7.8 !!

Kasper today is 30% MORE LIKELY to bowl a maiden over than Akram was throughout his career !!

3. Finally the much abused economy rates.

Arm chair critics of the 'X_X' variety tend to use averages and economy and strike rates as gospel and use them to prove or disprove this or that. But all they do is to expose their total lack of understanding of the game and its evolution over time.

Everyone knows that the game today has evolved beyond recognition from what it was even ten years ago. And the one area in which it has changed most dramatically is the scoring rates of batsmen. The Sehwag, Gilchrist's Afridi's Gayle's make a mockery of the bowlers economy rate. It is in this tough as nails environment that masters of the art like Kasper have honed their art not in the protected cushy times of Sanjay Manjrekar , Mike Gatting and Atherton.

The real test of a bowler's capacity to contain a batsman has come in the 21st century. It is in this boiling couldren that we decided to compare the great Kasper and the pretender from Pakistan.

In the 21st century, Kasper has an economy rate of 4.095 (and mind you he has bowled in 2004 and 2005 !!

Akram bowled only in 2000-2003(beginning) and averages 4.142.

Playing only 6 matches in 2003, he found the going so tough, (he averaged 4.28 and 4.23 in 2002 and 2004) that he chose to retire rather than soil his career figures further !!!

I have no doubt that the speed with which Akram's figures were being reworked by the batsmen of the new millenium he would have ended in the upper strata with the great AAgarkar for company.

Between 2001 and 2003 his averag had already moved up by a stunning 0.56 runs per over !!!!

I rest my case.
Excellent work and nice to see you back semi-full time. :)
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
SJS said:
The Assignment : To prove that Kasprowicz is a better bowler at the death than Wasim Akram

The Constraints : Lack of availability of statistics of the death overs

Modus Operendi : Use the other relevant stats available to show how Kasper HAS to be a better bowler at the death.

What is required to be a good bowler at the death ?
1. To be an economical bowler to start with.
2. To have the ability to bowl well to middle order batsmen (after all it is if they are still there at the end that the job will be tough not if 9, 10 Jack are struggling to get through the 50 overs)
3. To have the ability to bowl tightly in the 21st century's batsman friendly conditions where run rates have touched hitherto unimagined heights.

1. Comparison of Akram and Kasper's abilities against the middle order batsmen.

It may surprise the zillions of sub-continental devotees of the Pakistani Southpaw that he seemed to specialise in handling tail enders !!

Blasphemy ?

No sir !! Fact !

127 of Akrams victim's or 25.3 % of all the wickets he took in limited over internationals were of tail enders(numbers 8 to 11). Kasper has only 9 wickets(13.8%) of tail enders !! Surprised ? Well dont be. There's more.

You may say what has this to do with bowling at the death when we are agreed that its bowling to better batsmen (if they are still there at the death) is what matters. Okay, okay. Only 29.1 % of Akram's victims are middle order batsmen (numbers 4 to 7) while our lion from down under counts a phenomenal 44.6% of all his victims as being from the middle order !!

Thats not all. I am well aware of the sceptics who may rush into the well of the house shouting that there will be cases (howsoever few) when numbers 1 to 3 may also be at the end.

SO. If we add all victims from numbers 1 to 7 (though its less than fair to expect top order to be there often enough to matter) we still find
Akram having only 74.7%
wkts from top and middle order while
Kasper has 86.2 %
of his victims from this august group !!!!

Clearly Kasper has the top batsmen in a tizzy compared to Akram who seems to shrink like a violet before the onslaught of the top and middle order. Clearly this must translate itself into a better performance when faced by these same batsmen at the wicket in all situations of the match including the death overs.

2. Ability to bowl maidens at will !!!.

As is usual with the ignorant or the semi-litterate, people jump at Akrams career figures and wave them in the face of Kasper to try and prove that the former was a more economical bowler. This is a fallacy.

Firstly, Kasper and Akram played in different eras with very little overlap so taking into account Akram's figures for the pre-Kasper era of cricket is stupid.

Secondly, Kasper has been one of the greatest victims of unfair selection policies of his countries cricket authorities.

From the time he made his debut in December 1995 till November 2003, he played in a grand total of 16 ODI's in 8 years !! 2 ODI's per year !! What does one expect by way of consistent performance from a young man in this situation ??

In a similar 8 year period between 1994 and 2002, Akram played 169 ODI's. OVER 21 ODI's per year !!

And we want to compare them ??

Anyway, in the 18 months since Kasper has played with some regularity(2004 and 2005) playing 24 matches in a year and a half, he has shown himself to be one of the great bowlers for this form of the game.

How do we say that ?

Well what is one of the most difficult things for a bowler to do in an ODI? Bowl a maiden of course.

In the years 2004 and 2005 , 10.7 % of all overs bowled by Kasper have been maidens !! Can you beat that ??

Akram has a career % of 7.8 !!

Kasper today is 30% MORE LIKELY to bowl a maiden over than Akram was throughout his career !!

3. Finally the much abused economy rates.

Arm chair critics of the 'X_X' variety tend to use averages and economy and strike rates as gospel and use them to prove or disprove this or that. But all they do is to expose their total lack of understanding of the game and its evolution over time.

Everyone knows that the game today has evolved beyond recognition from what it was even ten years ago. And the one area in which it has changed most dramatically is the scoring rates of batsmen. The Sehwag, Gilchrist's Afridi's Gayle's make a mockery of the bowlers economy rate. It is in this tough as nails environment that masters of the art like Kasper have honed their art not in the protected cushy times of Sanjay Manjrekar , Mike Gatting and Atherton.

The real test of a bowler's capacity to contain a batsman has come in the 21st century. It is in this boiling couldren that we decided to compare the great Kasper and the pretender from Pakistan.

In the 21st century, Kasper has an economy rate of 4.095 (and mind you he has bowled in 2004 and 2005 !!

Akram bowled only in 2000-2003(beginning) and averages 4.142.

Playing only 6 matches in 2003, he found the going so tough, (he averaged 4.28 and 4.23 in 2002 and 2004) that he chose to retire rather than soil his career figures further !!!

I have no doubt that the speed with which Akram's figures were being reworked by the batsmen of the new millenium he would have ended in the upper strata with the great AAgarkar for company.

Between 2001 and 2003 his averag had already moved up by a stunning 0.56 runs per over !!!!

I rest my case.
Humbled.

Your best yet! ;)
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Well, there's been a long delay - but finally the "money shot". I'm now going to show the wise members of CW that the current WI bowling attack far outdoes that of the 1980s. Just when you thought that life made sense...

So, for the final proof that the current West Indies side is a much better outfit than the team that was *cough* wrongly *cough* feared throughout the 1980s, I present...

THE PACE BOWLERS

Darren Powell vs Malcolm Marshall
Well, every time I hear Malcolm Marshall described as "the best bowler in the history of the game", I stamp my foot in anger. Because I thought that it was common knowledge in cricket circles that Darren Powell makes Malcolm Marshall look like Marshall Mathers.

Worst gag ever.

Anyhoo, most people would agree that the hardest way to win a match is when you have to chase in the fourth innings. Deterioration of the pitch, concentration levels, physical strain on the body all conspire to make chasing so difficult. Therefore, for this comparison, it's perfectly sensible to assume that your performance when chasing a target is most important. And we see that Darren Powell does exceedingly well - and most importantly far better than the supposed best bowler in the history of the game - with his bowling average of only 14.50, as opposed to Marshall's 18.11.

What also struck me was that Marshall took 24 of his career's 25 catches in matches that the West Indies won. Therefore, it can be concluded that Marshall dropped catches when matches were draws or they lost. This statistic clearly shows that Marshall was liable to choke under pressure - unlike Darren, who also showed his mettle by taking his career best figures in a match that his side lost, showing his "ticker" in performing when no-one else, not even the great Braza-Laza could.

Fidel Edwards vs Andy Roberts
Andy Roberts might have had the "slower bouncer", but he doesn't average 6.33 with the ball against Pakistan. Nor can Andy claim to average as low as 15 against any Test playing nation, as Fidel can also claim with his record against Sri Lanka. Maybe a little hot and cold, but there can be no doubt that Fidel shows up Roberts in terms of complete output.

Another interesting little statistic is that Fidel averages 15 when his side wins. In other words, he always has to bowl knowing that the fate of the game rests on his shoulders - if he bowls well, the Windies win! Roberts had no such problem with the back-up available to him.

The other thing that you can count of Fidel doing is standing up and being counted in a tight series. In the drawn series' in which he has played, Edwards' bowling average is just above 6. This shows that he's a man who wants - and does - do well in tight situations.

Reon King vs Michael Holding
During Michael Holding's time, New Zealand were a force to be reckoned with. Still now, you can always count on the Black Caps, as they are now affectionately known, being competitive, and often provide the acid-test to see how good a cricket side, or indeed a player, is.

Which is where Holding is found out, averaging 36 versus New Zealand, and as much as 47 when he played in the land of the long white cloud! While Reon King came through the NZ test in flying colours, taking his wickets against them at a cost of 22 runs - very respectable indeed. 47 - pfft!

You know, I'm not a guy to challenge the character of an all-time great, but no matter how good a commentator he is, I'm not sold on Mikey having the same grit that Reon has. The same Reon who averages 8 runs less per wicket in matches where his side has lost (the toss), the same Reon who averages 24 when his side has been forced to follow on. As opposed to Holding, who averages 15 more when his side loses, averages more than King when his side is forced to follow on, but most importantly he averages 168 in 6th tests. Now that's the sign of a peaheart if there ever was one.

Corey Collymore vs Joel Garner
Corey Collymore, in addition to the fact that he's one of the best named players in Test history, has that ability to carry a team on his back, and it is this that helps him get over the line in comparison to Joel Garner. On times the Windies have needed something special, and he's provided it - as shown by him averaging 14 when his side ends up victors. In addition, when his side has won a match chasing a target, young Collymore - who has more potential than Ford Models' contract list - takes a wicket for every 9 runs conceeded. This is matchwinning stuff, making chasing targets - usually notoriously difficult - relatively easy.

Garner might have been quick, and he might have been hung like the 12 foot man that he is, but its no matter when you see Corey Collymore up against you. Especially considering he's fighting out of his weight division - in fact, as far as talk in cricketing circles go. Joel has his own weight division. "Girth-weight". But keeping shower form out of the comparison, it's clear to all and sundry that Collymore makes Garner look more like his "Colly-less".

vic_orthdox said:
Worst gag ever.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Why England Should Have Been Favourites For The Ashes...

With all the talk before the series about how Australian batsmen should hang themselves if they went out to Ashley Giles - anyone been watching the obituaries recently? - and the 5-0 smashing that the Aussies were going to hand out, certain respected commentators were overlooking a few very important facts when analysing the two sides.

Any observer worth their weight in salt would have pinpointed Australia's age as a real hurdle for this current series. Their collective age is nearly thrice that of the last Melbourne Cup field. If they're that much older than fast horses, what chances do they have against an England side filled with men, with the type of youthful charms that would appeal to a certain "smooth criminal".

When looking at each side's form coming into this series, Australia - some would argue - were left a little light on in preparation, while England successfully demolished the Bangladeshi outfit. So when looking at how Australia has performed in the past against this opposition, we see a trend that has continued into this series, with Australia batting slower than what England did this series, and conceeding more runs per over than what England have in all their encounters with the newest entrants to Test cricket.

Many have remarked on England's amazing scoring rate this series, which actually happens to be a greater run rate than what they score at versus Bangladesh. Therefore, it can be concluded that Bangladesh builds pressure much more successfully than Australia.

How on Earth can Australia expect to win the series when they're bowling attack is worse than Bangladesh's? 8-)

Australia's batsmen have been blamed by many as the root of the problem with Australia's batting order. However, mathematically, it is clearly the culmination of a number of problems - namely women.


  1. Women = Attractive to Shane Warne
  2. Warne = Sleaze-bag
  3. Sleaze-bag = Target for The Sun and Daily Mail
  4. The Sun and Daily Mail = Tabloids
  5. Tabloid = Small
  6. Small (supposedly) = Shane Warne ;)
  7. Shane Warne + Tabloids = Less time spent chasing birds as would usually happen on an Ashes tour
  8. Less time chasing birds = More time spent thinking about batting + More time spent reading papers
  9. More time spent thinking about batting = More time thinking about how I got out
  10. More time thinking about how I got out = Find solution
  11. Solution = Look in Papers for answers
  12. Look In Papers for Answers = See some young lass you'd like to chop, and then Ricky Ponting disagrees with you, thinks the bird on page 45 is hotter
  13. Ponting disagrees with you = Massive blow up in the papers
  14. Massive blow up in the papers = Focus off the cricket
So, you see, women are responsible for Australia not thinking enough about their cricket, having arguments between each other, problems in bed, ***ual frustration, their inabilty to read properly, thinking too much about their cricket, being sleaze-bags AND ultimately:

Losing the Ashes.

The Overall Solution: Incarceration of all females in Britain. Anyone? :ph34r:
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Warning letter to our best employee !!

vic_orthdox said:
With all the talk before the series about how Australian batsmen should hang themselves if they went out to Ashley Giles - anyone been watching the obituaries recently? - and the 5-0 smashing that the Aussies were going to hand out, certain respected commentators were overlooking a few very important facts when analysing the two sides.

Any observer worth their weight in salt would have pinpointed Australia's age as a real hurdle for this current series. Their collective age is nearly thrice that of the last Melbourne Cup field. If they're that much older than fast horses, what chances do they have against an England side filled with men, with the type of youthful charms that would appeal to a certain "smooth criminal".

When looking at each side's form coming into this series, Australia - some would argue - were left a little light on in preparation, while England successfully demolished the Bangladeshi outfit. So when looking at how Australia has performed in the past against this opposition, we see a trend that has continued into this series, with Australia batting slower than what England did this series, and conceeding more runs per over than what England have in all their encounters with the newest entrants to Test cricket.

Many have remarked on England's amazing scoring rate this series, which actually happens to be a greater run rate than what they score at versus Bangladesh. Therefore, it can be concluded that Bangladesh builds pressure much more successfully than Australia.

How on Earth can Australia expect to win the series when they're bowling attack is worse than Bangladesh's? 8-)

Australia's batsmen have been blamed by many as the root of the problem with Australia's batting order. However, mathematically, it is clearly the culmination of a number of problems - namely women.


  1. Women = Attractive to Shane Warne
  2. Warne = Sleaze-bag
  3. Sleaze-bag = Target for The Sun and Daily Mail
  4. The Sun and Daily Mail = Tabloids
  5. Tabloid = Small
  6. Small (supposedly) = Shane Warne ;)
  7. Shane Warne + Tabloids = Less time spent chasing birds as would usually happen on an Ashes tour
  8. Less time chasing birds = More time spent thinking about batting + More time spent reading papers
  9. More time spent thinking about batting = More time thinking about how I got out
  10. More time thinking about how I got out = Find solution
  11. Solution = Look in Papers for answers
  12. Look In Papers for Answers = See some young lass you'd like to chop, and then Ricky Ponting disagrees with you, thinks the bird on page 45 is hotter
  13. Ponting disagrees with you = Massive blow up in the papers
  14. Massive blow up in the papers = Focus off the cricket
So, you see, women are responsible for Australia not thinking enough about their cricket, having arguments between each other, problems in bed, ***ual frustration, their inabilty to read properly, thinking too much about their cricket, being sleaze-bags AND ultimately:

Losing the Ashes.

The Overall Solution: Incarceration of all females in Britain. Anyone? :ph34r:
Where are the stats in all this ??
Do not dilute our message !!


:-O :@ :mad2::ranting:

For and on Behalf of The SJS Stats Factory
signed and delivered
SJS
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
SJS said:
Where are the stats in all this ??
Do not dilute our message !!


:-O :@ :mad2::ranting:

For and on Behalf of The SJS Stats Factory
signed and delivered
SJS
no stats there...but it has to be said that he has used some irrefutable logic..... :D

can't you forgive him this once...? :)
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
SJS said:
Where are the stats in all this ??
Do not dilute our message !!


:-O :@ :mad2::ranting:

For and on Behalf of The SJS Stats Factory
signed and delivered
SJS
vic_orthdox said:
Their collective age is nearly thrice that of the last Melbourne Cup field.
Australia's collective age is 350 years, 146 days, or something of the like, while the total Melbourne Cup field's age was only 170 years. :sleep:
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
Australia's collective age is 350 years, 146 days, or something of the like, while the total Melbourne Cup field's age was only 170 years. :sleep:
Thats my boy :)

Promoted.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Proove to me that Dave Mohammed and Daniel Vettori would make a better spin partnership the Laker and Lock, Grimmett and O'Reilly, and Murali and Warne did/are/would/you get the picture.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
steds said:
Proove to me that Dave Mohammed and Daniel Vettori would make a better spin partnership the Laker and Lock, Grimmett and O'Reilly, and Murali and Warne did/are/would/you get the picture.
Hello?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
steds said:
The boss is busy making sure the airlines around Asia remain in black and the head of the staff is resting after a strenuous tour of India with the Aus Under 19's. Please give us some time :)
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
tooextracool said:
another ridiculous and unnecessary thread from the man himself. im surprised that threads like these dont get closed,given that they bear absolutely no relevance to anything other than someone trying to make to make himself feel more important.
Amusing perspective.
 

Top